Path Aware Networking RG B. Trammell
Internet-Draft ETH Zurich
Intended status: Informational October 17, 2018
Expires: April 20, 2019
Open Questions in Path Aware Networking
draft-irtf-panrg-questions-01
Abstract
This document poses open questions in path-aware networking, as a
background for framing discussions in the Path Aware Networking
proposed Research Group (PANRG). These are split into making
properties of Internet paths available to endpoints, and allowing
endpoints to select paths through the Internet for their traffic.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 20, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Trammell Expires April 20, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PAN questions October 2018
Table of Contents
1. Introduction to Path-Aware Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. A Vocabulary of Path Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Discovery, Distribution, and Trustworthiness of Path
Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Supporting Path Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Interfaces for Path Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.5. Implications of Path Awareness for the Data Plane . . . . 5
2.6. What is an Endpoint? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.7. Operating a Path Aware Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.8. Deploying a Path Aware Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction to Path-Aware Networking
In the current Internet architecture, the interdomain network layer
provides an unverifiable, best-effort service: an application can
assume that a packet with a given destination address will eventually
be forwarded toward that destination, but little else. A transport
layer protocol such as TCP can provide reliability over this best-
effort service, and a protocol above the network layer such as IPsec
AH [RFC4302] or TLS [RFC5246] can authenticate the remote endpoint.
However, no explicit information about the path is available, and
assumptions about that path sometimes do not hold, sometimes with
serious impacts on the application, as in the case with BGP hijacking
attacks.
By contrast, in a path-aware internetworking architecture, endpoints
have the ability to select or influence the path through the network
used by any given packet, and the network layer explicitly exposes
information about the path or paths available between two endpoints
to those endpoints so that they can make this selection. Path
control at the packet level enables new transport protocols that can
leverage multipath connectivity across maximally-disjoint paths
through the Internet, even over a single interface. It also provides
transparency and control for applications and end-users to specify
constraints on the paths that traffic should traverse, for instance
to confound pervasive passive surveillance in the network core.
We note that this property of "path awareness" already exists in many
Internet-connected networks in an intradomain context. Indeed, much
of the practice of network engineering using encapsulation at layer 3
Trammell Expires April 20, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PAN questions October 2018
can be said to be "path aware", in that it explicitly assigns traffic
at tunnel endpoints to a given path within the network. Path-aware
internetworking seeks to extend this awareness across domain
boundaries without resorting to overlays, except as a transition
technology.
2. Questions
Realizing path-aware networking requires answers to a set of open
research questions. This document poses these questions, as a
starting point for discussions about how to realize path awareness in
the Internet, and to direct future research efforts within the Path
Aware Networking Research Group.
2.1. A Vocabulary of Path Properties
In order for information about paths to be exposed to the endpoints,
and for those endpoints to be able to use that information, it is
necessary to define a common vocabulary for path properties. The
elements of this vocabulary could include relatively static
properties, such as the presence of a given node on the path; as well
as relatively dynamic properties, such as the current values of
metrics such as loss and latency.
This vocabulary must be defined carefully, as its design will have
impacts on the expressiveness of a given path-aware internetworking
architecture. This expressiveness also exhibits tradeoffs. For
example, a system that exposes node-level information for the
topology through each network would maximize information about the
individual components of the path at the endpoints at the expense of
making internal network topology universally public, which may be in
conflict with the business goals of each network's operator.
The first question: how are path properties defined and represented?
2.2. Discovery, Distribution, and Trustworthiness of Path Properties
Once endpoints and networks have a shared vocabulary for expressing
path properties, the network must have some method for distributing
those path properties to the endpoint. Regardless of how path
property information is distributed to the endpoints, the endpoints
require a method to authenticate the properties - to determine that
they originated from and pertain to the path that they purport to.
Choices in distribution and authentication methods will have impacts
on the scalability of a path-aware architecture. Possible dimensions
in the space of distribution methods include in-band versus out-of-
band, push versus pull versus publish-subscribe, and so on. There
Trammell Expires April 20, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PAN questions October 2018
are temporal issues with path property dissemination as well,
especially with dynamic properties, since the measurement or
elicitation of dynamic properties may be outdated by the time that
information is available at the endpoints, and interactions between
the measurement and dissemination delay may exhibit pathological
behavior for unlucky points in the parameter space.
The second question: how do endpoints get access to trustworthy path
properties?
2.3. Supporting Path Selection
Access to trustworthy path properties is only half of the challenge
in establishing a path-aware architecture. Endpoints must be able to
use this information in order to select paths for traffic they send.
As with path property distribution, choices made in path selection
methods will also have an impact on the scalability and
expressiveness of a path-aware architecture, and dimensions included
in-band versus out-of-band, as well. Paths may also be selected on
multiple levels of granularity - per packet, per flow, per aggregate
- and this choice also has impacts on the scalabilty/expressiveness
tradeoff. Path selection must, like path property information, be
trustworthy, such that the result of a path selection at an endpoint
is predictable.
The third question: how can endpoints select paths to use for traffic
in a way that can be trusted by both the network and the endpoints?
2.4. Interfaces for Path Awareness
In order for applications to make effective use of a path-aware
networking architecture, the interfaces presented by the network and
transport layers must also expose path properties to the application
in a useful way, and provide a useful set of paths among which the
application can select. Path selection must be possible based not
only on the preferences and policies of the application developer,
but of end-users as well. Also, the path selection interfaces
presented to applications and end users will need to support multiple
levels of granularity. Most applications' requirements can be
satisfied with the expression path selection policies in terms of
properties of the paths, while some applications may need finer-
grained, per-path control.
The fourth question: how can interfaces to the transport and
application layers support the use of path awareness?
Trammell Expires April 20, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PAN questions October 2018
2.5. Implications of Path Awareness for the Data Plane
In the current Internet, the basic assumption that at a given time t
all traffic for a given flow will traverse a single path, for some
definition of path, generally holds. In a path aware network, this
assumption no longer holds. The absence of this assumption has
implications for the design of protocols above any path-aware network
layer.
For example, one advantage of multipath communication is that a given
end-to-end flow can be "sprayed" along multiple paths in order to
confound attempts to collect data or metadata from those flows for
pervasive surveillance purposes [RFC7624]. However, the benefits of
this approach are reduced if the upper-layer protocols use linkable
identifiers on packets belonging to the same flow across different
paths. Clients may mitigate linkability by opting to not re-use
cleartext connection identifiers, such as TLS session IDs or tickets,
on separate paths. The privacy-conscious strategies required for
effective privacy in a path-aware Internet are only possible if
higher-layer protocols such as TLS permit clients to obtain
unlinkable identifiers.
The fifth question: how should transport-layer and higher layer
protocols be redesigned to work most effectively over a path-aware
networking layer?
2.6. What is an Endpoint?
The vision of path-aware networking articulated so far makes an
assumption that path properties will be disseminated to endpoints on
which applications are running (terminals with user agents, servers,
and so on). However, incremental deployment may require that a path-
aware network "core" be used to interconnect islands of legacy
protocol networks. In these cases, it is the gateways, not the
application endpoints, that receive path properties and make path
selections for that traffic. The interfaces provided by this gateway
are necessarily different than those a path-aware networking layer
provides to its transport and application layers, and the path
property information the gateway needs and makes available over those
interfaces may also be different.
The sixth question: how is path awareness (in terms of vocabulary and
interfaces) different when applied to tunnel and overlay endpoints?
Trammell Expires April 20, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PAN questions October 2018
2.7. Operating a Path Aware Network
The network operations model in the current Internet architecture
assumes that traffic flows are controlled by the decisions and
policies made by network operators, as expressed in interdomain
routing protocols. In a network providing path selection to the
endpoints, however, this assumption no longer holds, as endpoints may
react to path properties by selecting alternate paths. Competing
control inputs from path-aware endpoints and the interdomain routing
control plane may lead to more difficult traffic engineering or
nonconvergent routing, especially if the endpoints' and operators'
notion of the "best" path for given traffic diverges significantly.
A concept for path aware network operations will need to have clear
methods for the resolution of apparent (if not actual) conflicts of
intent between the network's operator and the path selection at an
endpoint. It will also need set of safety principles to ensure that
increasing path control does not lead to decreasing connectivity; one
such safety principle could be "the existence of at least one path
between two endpoints guarantees the selection of at least one path
between those endpoints."
The seventh question: how can a path aware network in a path aware
internetwork be effectively operated, given control inputs from the
network administrator as well as from the endpoints?
2.8. Deploying a Path Aware Network
The vision presented in the introduction discusses path aware
networking from the point of view of the benefits accruing at the
endpoints, to designers of transport protocols and applications as
well as to the end users of those applications. However, this vision
requires action not only at the endpoints but within the
interconnected networks offering path aware connectivity. While the
specific actions required are a matter of the design and
implementation of a specific realization of a path aware protocol
stack, it is clear than any path aware architecture will require
network operators to give up some control of their networks over to
endpoint-driven control inputs.
Here the question of apparent versus actual conflicts of intent
arises again: certain network operations requirements may appear
essential, but are merely accidents of the interfaces provided by
current routing and management protocols. Incentives for deployment
must show how existing network operations requirements are met
through new path selection and property dissemination mechanisms.
Trammell Expires April 20, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PAN questions October 2018
The incentives for network operators and equipment vendors to do
provide be made clear, in terms of a plan to transition [RFC8170] an
internetwork to path-aware operation, one network and facility at a
time.
The eighth question: how can the incentives of network operators and
end-users be aligned to realize the vision of path aware networking?
3. Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Adrian Perrig, Jean-Pierre Smith, Mirja Kuehlewind,
Olivier Bonaventure, Martin Thomson, Shwetha Bhandari, Chris Wood,
and Lee Howard, for discussions leading to questions in this
document.
This work is partially supported by the European Commission under
Horizon 2020 grant agreement no. 688421 Measurement and Architecture
for a Middleboxed Internet (MAMI), and by the Swiss State Secretariat
for Education, Research, and Innovation under contract no. 15.0268.
This support does not imply endorsement.
4. References
4.1. Normative References
[RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4302, December 2005,
.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
.
4.2. Informative References
[RFC7624] Barnes, R., Schneier, B., Jennings, C., Hardie, T.,
Trammell, B., Huitema, C., and D. Borkmann,
"Confidentiality in the Face of Pervasive Surveillance: A
Threat Model and Problem Statement", RFC 7624,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7624, August 2015,
.
[RFC8170] Thaler, D., Ed., "Planning for Protocol Adoption and
Subsequent Transitions", RFC 8170, DOI 10.17487/RFC8170,
May 2017, .
Trammell Expires April 20, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PAN questions October 2018
Author's Address
Brian Trammell
ETH Zurich
Gloriastrasse 35
8092 Zurich
Switzerland
Email: ietf@trammell.ch
Trammell Expires April 20, 2019 [Page 8]